The question has been raised, notably by Sayce (Races of the Old Testament, p. 110), whether the Amorites and other groups of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants were Semites. Much stress has been laid upon the representation of Amorites on Egyp- tian monuments where they are depicted with yellow skin, blue eyes, red eyebrows and beard, and light but also black hair (W. M. Flinders Petrie, Racial Types from Egypt, London, 1887). The Egyptian artists, however, were not always consistent in their drawings, and more particu- larly in their colourings, as Sayce himself is forced to admit (/.c. 113, 114)... Too much im- portance, therefore, must not be attached to the colouring of the racial types on the Egyptian monuments. Anxiety to produce a pleasing or startling effect was a factor which interfered
* See Steinthal, Zeits. f. Volkerpsychologie, 12, 267, and Ed. Meyer, ZATW i. 122.
78 RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
seriously with ethnographical accuracy. But, apart from the colouring, there are no such decided dis- tinctions between Amorites and Judzans on Egyp- tian monuments as to warrant the supposition that the two belonged to different races or even to different branches of the Semites ; and to account for this, as Sayce would have us do, by assuming that up to comparatively so late a period as the days of Rehoboam the population of southern Judzea was still largely Amoritic (/.c. p, 112), is simply building a further argument upon a mere supposition. The term Amorite, moreover, has a Semitic sound and appearance, and until better evidence to the con- trary is forthcoming we may group them with the same race as the later settlers of Palestine. The Amorites were a warlike people, living in walled towns. The recollection of their prowess survived to a late date, and they became to subsequent generations the giants of olden days. It has become customary in consequence to identify the Amorites with the ANAKIM, REPHAIM, EMIM, and ZAMZUMMIM, or to regard these as so many sub- divisions of the Amorites. It is true that the Rephaim and Anakim are occasionally spoken of in the OT as though they were identical with Amorites, but this is due to the fact that ‘Re- phaim” and “Anakim~ (ef. e.g: Dt 20-20 94-28) are used as generic terms for a powerful race, and no longer as specific designations of any particular group. This, however, does not imply that there were no groups known as Rephaim and Anakim respectively, but that they belong to such a remote past as to become mere names to later generations ; and since strength and gigantic stature are invari- ably ascribed by a later generation to remote ancestors,—in part, no doubt, justifiably ascribed, —we may only conclude from the way in which these terms are used that no definite traditions about these groups have survived. As for Emim and Zamzummim (possibly identical with the Zuzim of Gn 14°), they are merely the names of the ancient population of Moab and Ammon respectively (Dt 2 and *°). While it is no longer possible to specify the extent of the territory of the Rephaim and Anakim, so much appears tolerably certain that these groups, with the Emim and Zamzummim, constitute the oldest inhabitants of Palestine and the district to the east of the Jordan known to us —preceding the Amorites but afterwards com- mingled through the faintness of tradition with Amorites, just as Amorites in time are not sharply distinguished from Canaanites, and just as the groups Hivvites, Perizzites, etc., come to be viewed in some strata of tradition as subdivisions of Canaanites.
If we are to seek for a non-Semitic race in Pales- tine at all, we must go back beyond the Amorites to the nebulous Rephaim, Anakim, Emim, and Zamzummim. There are some reasons for actually supposing the pre-Amoritic settlers to have been of a different race, which was gradually subdued by the Amorites both to the east and west of Jordan; but the thesis is one which in the present state of our knowledge cannot be proved with certainty, though the fact of the existence of an early non-Semitic peor in certain portions of Palestine has now
een established by ethnological evidence (see Alex. Macalister in PE FSt, Oct. 1902, pp. 353-356).
With even greater assurance than in the case of the Amorites, has it been maintained that the HITTITES belong to a non-Semitic race. The problem in this instance is even more complicated, in consequence of the vague and indefinite usage of the term. We find a group of Hittites in the south around Hebron carried back by tradition to the days of Abraham (Gn 23°-7-10 ete.). These Hittites are also in alliance with Edomites, and in the days of David we encounter Flittites in his army (28 11,
cf. 1 S 26%). The Egyptian and Assyrian _monu- ments, however, cre the existence of Hittite settlements in the north along the Orontes as early as the 15th cent. B.c., and these gave the mighty Assyrian rulers a great deal of trouble before they were finally subdued towards the end of the 8th century. ‘he term appears to include a variety of groups which extend northward and westward of the Amorites to the southern and western crests of Asia Minor as well as far into the interior. These northern Hittites do not seem to have anything more in common with those of the south than the name. How this is to be accounted for is an un- solved problem. While the northern Hittites have left numerous monuments containing sculptures and inscriptions, those in the south do not appear to have even reached the stage of culture which produces art and literature. From the Egyptian monuments we catch glimpses of the Hittite physiognomy, and, to judge from these, the Hitt- ites were not a Semitic race ; and yet too much stress must not be laid upon these representations. Certainly, we have no sound reason for supposing those of the south to belong to any other race than the Semites. The rather close relations between them and the Hebrews and the Edomites would point to ethnic affinity ; and if there is any con- nexion between the Hittites of the south and those of the north, we may at most assume that the latter became mixed with the non-Semitic popula- tion without losing Semitic traits altogether.